<quoted text>Deny property was primary consideration leading to marriage if you choose. Remember, women and children were often considered property throughout history.

Property was a secondary consideration, primary was simple biology. Human reproduction is sexual. Two sexes, one union.

Your biased opinion piece overlooks the fact the court did not need to find a fundamental right of ssm. They already established marriage as a fundamental right, on 14 occasions.

Each ruling established marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, as the fundamental right. Not two men, two women, one man many women, one woman many men, siblings, etc.

All they need to show was that the gender restriction violated the equal protections requirements of the constitution. They did, striking down the federal prohibition on gender as a violation of the equal protections requirement of the 5th and 14th amendments. That was the question which was before them.

The Feds simply recognized what the individual state defined as marriage.

You have no idea what Adams would say if he were still alive today, as many religious scholars, leaders, and believers understand the bible prohibits abusive relationships, not ones based on mutual love and respect between adults. Your quote fails to refute the fact he understood majorities would always overpower and marginalize unpopular minorities if not prevented from doing so by law. That is why he supported equal treatment under the law for all persons.

Equal treatment does not mean we ignore differences. All men are treated the same, as are all women as it relates to marriage. Equal treatment is achieved.

<quoted text>And would the high number of births out of wedlock, unwanted children, stats for adult straight men having sex with underage girts, rapes, and the percentage of marriages that fail due to cheating be a sign of severe sex addiction and sexual dysfunction in all straight males?

<quoted text>You really should quit while you are supposedly ahead......lol!!!You also have difficult with reading comprehension because the article link given, already spoke of that which you claim!!!!

My bad NorCal.....I read the article after this post. Interesting, so it would appear, female sexuality is more fluid than male.

And you should really STOP ASSuming that just because some women may "flip-flop" as you claim......most women are probably more BISEXUAL and just don't want a label, but I can guarantee one thing for sure.......I am a Lesbian.......I don't "flip-flop" and I'm a 100% committed to my wife:-)

I'm not claiming some women "flip flop", rather some women do seem to change, either reject a previous sexual identity label, or embrace a new one. "Lesbian" can also be a political sexual identity, as much as a sexual orientation identity, for some women.

<quoted text>Property, many would argue, was the original purpose of marriage. Procreation was secondary.

Property is irrelevant without the union of the sexes, and what they produce, offspring.

Again, the fundamental right of marriage remains a fundamental right of all persons, even when procreation, and even sex, are impossible.[QUOTE]

The foundation of that fundamental right is the male female union.

[QUOTE]Your last paragraph relies on the false assertion same sex marriages are fundamentally different from opposite sex marriages.

Biology wasn't your strong suit in high school, wasn't it. Dad never had "the talk" with you?

As the laws that recognize same sex marriages demonstrate, they are the same thing under the law. All of the same laws still apply to all married couples.

The marital presumptions, marital expectations, and the laws, in some states, regarding marital annulments, indicate a difference between the two.

John Adams, among others, has answered your question of "why hasn't SSM developed parallel to OSM". John Adams, the second U.S. president: "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

Or perhaps it's simply a matter of biology, a same sex sexual union produces nothing requiring societal recognition, or regulation.

Bi For NowCall them hasbians. Women who came out of the closet only to end up in heterosexual relationships. Switching teams is never easyno matter which side you're on.

By Amy Sohn If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days shes been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over againas heterosexuals.

Some hasbians identify as bisexual, while others say theyre straight and describe their lesbianism as a meaningful but finite phase of their lives, like listening to a lot of Morrissey or campaigning for Dukakis. But all say they have had to pay a price, feeling a need to keep their past lives secret from new boyfriends while facing judgment from their closest friends. Patty, a 27-year-old stockbroker, came out during college but for the past six months has been seeing a guy. She says she was so consumed with coming out that she never gave men a fair shot. Sex with her boyfriend is tender, she says, if less adventurous than with her girlfriend. Then there are the obvious differences.With a man, orgasm is the goal. With women, youre not as focused on it and its less of a race to get there. If a man doesnt come, his ego is deflated, whereas with a woman, thats not a factor. Its more mix and match.

<quoted text>Clearly there is a political identity associated with "GBLQT". Even you have to admit that.

Why would I have to admit that? I don't believe that there is solely a political identity associated with the GLBTQI community.....and again, NO ONE IS GOING TO BE GAY OR LESBIAN just because of a need for a political identity.

Gays and Lesbians along with those who support the GLBTQI Community are fighting for something they believe in........maybe you know folks who pretend to be something that they aren't......but ALL of the couples who are fighting for rights truly have a STAKE in the outcome!!!

<quoted text> That is not what i wrote. You have comprehension problems. Either that or you distort posts. Why should one expect honesty from a pro sodomite? <quoted text> And before birth it is open season in spite of the Constitution.<quoted text> SSM is not a fundamental right and spamming does not make it so. Your tactics are pathetic. The whole basis of your title is a lie. Not equal yet, my ass! Just another pro sodomite whiner.<quoted text> Never wrote they did not. <quoted text> Who said anything about harming anybody? Are you having delusions? The voices in your head? What are you talking about?<quoted text> That is a claim. I don't see a source. The supreme Court does not want to alter the meaning of marriage at the federal level. Get used to it. There is no fundamental right to SSM.

Notice I cited "Gill" as the source. It shows denial of equal treatment of same sex marriages harms those families and their children. It is just one of many showing denial of equality harms those denied, while providing nothing to those refusing equal treatment.

Again, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.(Two of the 14 SCOTUS cases affirming marriage as a fundamental right):

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

In Windsor, SCOTUS found gender was not a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for the federal government to deny this fundamental right, and section 3 was therefore a violation of the 5th amendment requirements of equal protection.

<quoted text>The Feds simply recognize what a state defines as marriage, not necessarily declaring it a "right", fundamental, or otherwise.

In Windsor, SCOTUS found gender was not a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for the federal government to deny this fundamental right, and section 3 was therefore a violation of the 5th amendment requirements of equal protection.

<quoted text>Property is irrelevant without the union of the sexes, and what they produce, offspring.<quoted text>Biology wasn't your strong suit in high school, wasn't it. Dad never had "the talk" with you?<quoted text>The marital presumptions, marital expectations, and the laws, in some states, regarding marital annulments, indicate a difference between the two.<quoted text>Or perhaps it's simply a matter of biology, a same sex sexual union produces nothing requiring societal recognition, or regulation.

Try telling that to the millions who have married for property throughout the ages. Goats, asses, and all kinds of animals, Dowry, land, and so on are listed, even for common folks. Kings, leaders, and others use it to consolidate property and power. Again, women and children were often less important than the property and power, though they were part of both the property and power.

But again, procreation ability has never been a requirement in the US. And did your biology class neglect to tell you sex doesn't always result in reproduction, especially for women as they get older? And some people have deformities and accidents that prevent them from reproducing? And, most importantly, there are many wayw to avoid it, and aviod disease transmission as well? Too bad they didn't tell you neither reproduction nor sex are required for marriage, nor is marriage required for reproduction.

Babies might sometimes happen for some couples, but not always. Failure to be fertile is not accepted as an excuse for annulment.(yet, do you oppose no fault divorce....)

When sex was an expectation of the contract and is withheld, a contract violation can be shown. When there is no expectation, no violation.

And again, fundamental rights do not have to be earned, or demonstrate any interest to the government. They exist for all persons. You must show a good reason for taking them away if you want to restrict them. Procreation isn't one of them, and therefore neither is gender. You still have nothing sufficient to deny a fundamental human right.

<quoted text>Notice I cited "Gill" as the source. It shows denial of equal treatment of same sex marriages harms those families and their children. It is just one of many showing denial of equality harms those denied, while providing nothing to those refusing equal treatment.

What specific harm do you speak of? If the concern is not to "harm" children "of" same sex couples by declaring their relationship "marriage", by what reasoning to we not apply the same reasoning to the biological children of plural marriage families? Are they not worthy? Please list the specific harm.

Again, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.(Two of the 14 SCOTUS cases affirming marriage as a fundamental right):Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Same sex marriage not legal in 1974, plus same sex sexual relations still criminal in many states. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

Same sex marriage not legal in 1987, plus same sex sexual relations still criminal in many states. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

In Windsor, SCOTUS found gender was not a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for the federal government to deny this fundamental right, and section 3 was therefore a violation of the 5th amendment requirements of equal protection.

SCOTUS did not declare SSM a fundamental right, nor plural marriage, nor sibling marriage. The fundamental right is still the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

<quoted text>No, irresponsibility, lack of marital commitment and planing, criminal, criminal, human nature particularly males who are evolutionary designed to seek out multiple female partners. Perhaps the reason polygyny far our weighs , historically, polyandry.<quoted text>Hmmmmmm.....men are orientated to seek out multiple female partners. Even gay male couple are less monogamous than their female counterparts.<quoted text>Boys will be boys.....to a degree...and depends on the issue.

While I wouldn't argue there may easily be a biological component, "boys will be boys" is in large part because they are taught to be "boys" from day one with a blue blanket, while girls are taught to be "girls".

Yet many don't fit those gender expression restrictions and expectations, no matter how strongly demanded.

Many men are promiscuous because it was instilled in them as a child as somewhat acceptable. Yet many also want commitment and monogamy, especially as they outgrow their youth. Trying to make everyone comply to an impossible ideal, ignores the reality of being human. It also isn't imposed on opposite sex marriages.

<quoted text>What specific harm do you speak of? If the concern is not to "harm" children "of" same sex couples by declaring their relationship "marriage", by what reasoning to we not apply the same reasoning to the biological children of plural marriage families? Are they not worthy? Please list the specific harm.<quoted text>Same sex marriage not legal in 1974, plus same sex sexual relations still criminal in many states. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.<quoted text>Same sex marriage not legal in 1987, plus same sex sexual relations still criminal in many states. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.<quoted text>SCOTUS did not declare SSM a fundamental right, nor plural marriage, nor sibling marriage. The fundamental right is still the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.

The harm has been well established in other areas, but Windsor focused on about 350,000 reasons, and found gender was not a sufficient governmental interest sufficient for the federal government to deny equal treatment as required by the 5th amendment.

They did not need to establish a fundamental right of same sex marriage as there is no such thing as same sex marriage when gender is not a requirement for marriage. It is just marriage. Gender was removed, not established.

<quoted text>The harm has been well established in other areas, but Windsor focused on about 350,000 reasons, and found gender was not a sufficient governmental interest sufficient for the federal government to deny equal treatment as required by the 5th amendment.

What is the specific harm to them, and whatever children they may have?

They did not need to establish a fundamental right of same sex marriage as there is no such thing as same sex marriage when gender is not a requirement for marriage.

Wrong, gender, or specifically the joining of both male and female is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT in 30 plus states.

. It is just marriage. Gender was removed, not established.

If one gender is removed, marriage as a distinct relationship of husband and wife, is fundamentally changed. In essence it is no longer marriage, as it has been understood legally, culturally, socially, historically, and/or religiously throughout American history.

<quoted text>Property was a secondary consideration, primary was simple biology. Human reproduction is sexual. Two sexes, one union.

If that were true, then common law wouldn't have held married women and children to be the property of their husbands/fathers with little to no separate legal identity apart from their husbands/fathers. And the historical connection of procreation with marriage had more to do with concern for legitimacy of children for purposes of inheritance and hereditary titles than as the primary focus of marriage.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Each ruling established marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, as the fundamental right.Not two men, two women, one man many women, one woman many men, siblings, etc.

That's simply not true. SCOTUS ruled marriage a fundamental right without establishing a legal definition or adding qualifications or descriptors to the right. Most of these declarations are ancillary to the actual legal issue before the court.

And again, since SCOTUS doesn't rule on issues that haven't been brought before them, it's hardly surprising no case before 2005 mentioning marriage as a fundamental right involved same sex marriage since same sex couples were prohibited from marrying before that time. And of the two cases involving same sex marriage SCOTUS has now heard, one was not decided on the merits of the case since the ruling deemed the party appealing to SCOTUS lacked standing to do so, letting the federal District court ruling that California Prop 8 and the other ordered the federal government to recognize same sex marriages that were validly contracted in states permitting them.

So your position is 0 for 2 in same sex marriage cases appearing before SCOTUS.

Pietro Armando wrote:

The Feds simply recognized what the individual state defined as marriage.

Indeed. A definition that you've repeatedly asserted has no basis in US history or common law. And yet exists and is now federally recognized because it was deemed unconstitutional for the federal government to deny recognition to such marriages.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Equal treatment does not mean we ignore differences. All men are treated the same, as are all women as it relates to marriage. Equal treatment is achieved.

Equal application is not what's constitutionally required. Even anti-miscegenation laws were equally applied to whites and blacks. The constitutional requirement is equal protection f the laws which is something quite different. Why are you so uneducable on this topic?

<quoted text>Property is irrelevant without the union of the sexes, and what they produce, offspring.

Actually, property was quite relevant to a marriage, even in the absence of children. After all, marriage established kinship between the previously unrelated persons and thus established links between the families as well. Marriage s we=could be about political and economic alliances between families, which provided benefits to the families even in the absence of children.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Biology wasn't your strong suit in high school, wasn't it. Dad never had "the talk" with you?

Since procreation is not a requirement marriage, it's not a factor in determining what differences may exist between same sex and opposite sex couples.

Pietro Armando wrote:

The marital presumptions, marital expectations

"Marital presumptions and marital expectations" have nor relevance to exercising the fundamental right of marriage unless there is a compelling state interest to justify them.

Pietro Armando wrote:

and the laws, in some states, regarding marital annulments, indicate a difference between the two.

So now you argue the legal reasons for allowing annulment of a marriage somehow define who can exercise the fundamental right of marriage? LOL. You really aren't very bright.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Or perhaps it's simply a matter of biology, a same sex sexual union produces nothing requiring societal recognition, or regulation.

A marriage does not have to "produce" anything in order to be recognized by the state as a marriage. Marriage is a fundamental right and hence intrinsic to humans; there is no need to demonstrate or produce a benefit or any purpose to receive recognition by the state. The state is simply required to acknowledge a citizen's exercise of that right unless the state can demonstrate a compelling government interest to restrict or infringe the exercise of the right.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.